How non-theists can justify moral values and judgements.
Today, I stumbled across this comment:
"In atheism, there is no concept of objective good and evil. As Dawkins states, at bottom, 'there is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference'. So it is rather ironic that atheists express moral outrage over something their worldview does not permit to exist. Yet, by acknowledging any form of injustice, they are implicitly agreeing to the existence of a moral law — and, consequently, a moral lawgiver."
In reply, I offer this:
First, let's open with a rebuttal offered by the renowned scientist and philosopher Steven Pinker.
I'd also point out that "theists" don't actually get their morals from any "God".
All human moral concepts and values come from humans.
Humans are the only sentient beings who had a hand in writing bibles, qurans, and all other alleged "holy texts".
Even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that a Super-Being was personally involved in the creation of any religion's texts, ...
humans have always been 'on their own' to subjectively decide which texts to call "holy" or "divine", how to interpret those texts, and how to apply those subjective interpretations to their lives.
Even when it comes to choosing a church, temple, mosque (etc), ...
Religion-minded humans typically SHOP AROUND for a congregation which agrees with that human's own subjective moral intuitions.
That means they are shopping around for a "God" who agrees with what they already subjectively think about the issues which matter to them.
That means they aren't really getting their morals from those religious institutions.
They're going to BRING their own moral intuitions into those churches,
and also READ their own moral intuitions INTO those texts,
and then PRETEND it worked the other way around.
In reality,
some of those intuitions are generated by genetics.
Some are generated by formative life experiences.
Some of those life experiences are provided by social environment; including society-level culture as well as localized ingroup culture.
Some are generated as a reflex response to things (favorable and non-favorable) which happen to them.
MUCH of that is also heavily determined by their diet's impact on their digestive system's microbiome.
And on the conscious level, ALL of a religious person's moral reasonings have entirely secular origins. Because "secular" doesn't mean "non-theistic". Nor does it mean "anti-theistic". Nor does it mean "progressive".
"Secular" is any thinking which people do on their own; without the personal guidance of any celestial Super-Beings.
That's why all human thoughts are secular. Because we never have the benefit of 'any such beings' telling us what we 'ought' to think.
Notice.
I'm saying "no such Beings exist".
I'm merely pointing out that:
EVEN IF some such Beings exist,
we are still left to figure everything out for ourselves.
Now, we all do HAVE ample, objectively rational reasons to build (and sustain) healthy human cognitive, social and societal systems.
So then, if we WANT to build (and sustain) healthy human cognitive, social and societal systems,
there is something crucially important for us to realize:
That project will go a LOT better if we're all working together; instead of letting moral-authoritarian religions
de-incentivize us,
distract us,
divide us,
.jpg)
"othering" outsiders,
with unreasonable criteria for what it means to be an "enemy";
decrying outsiders as "the world" who doesn't really deserve to even exist, and then justifying that by offering (expensive) ingroup membership (advertised dishonestly as a free membership),
as the ONLY way anyone can climb up into worthiness to exist,
and then joyfully anticipating violent and eternal consequences as a "final solution" to the "problem" of non-members even existing.
disabling us,
hinder development of autonomous ethical strengths,
Sabotage each next generations mental health,
in trade for social benefits which only rarely outweigh the consequences,
.png)
.jfif)
.jfif)
setting children up for abusive marriages,
.jfif)
.jfif)
Granted, those same religions will say their "God" ALSO hates it when wives, children, and husbands are abused.
And so they imagine they've properly accounted for this concern.
However,
they have NOT properly accounted for this concern, because:
1. Social inequality IS a form of abuse; which ripple effects into other forms of abuse.
2. Those religions push ways of thinking
into vulnerable people's minds
which are objectively, factually antithetical to social and psychological health.
So then those religions are really saying "God" hates all abuse EXCEPT FOR the abuses he orchestrates and mandates.
And then they say ... we should not call those abuses "abuse".
They say it's all good, ... in some way they can't account for.
In other words, they are demanding to be EXEMPT from the ethical and rational standards the rest of society is bound to.
To quote Dr Robert Sapolsky,
“the same exact traits which in a secular context are life-destroying” and “separate you from the community” are, “at the core of what is protected, what is sanctioned, what is rewarded, what is valued in religious settings.”
And they're only justification for that?
"That's how God wants it".
[The list of problems caused by such religions is much longer than this. But I trust I've made my point.]
In any case,
all creatures,
same as all plant and objects,
behave according to their individual nature;
a nature which is determined by the complex and interactive physical systems which drive them.
At this point in our biological and cultural evolution,
it's in our individual and collective best interests
to stop pretending that the impossible-magic of libertarian Free Will is what's driving human thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
For as long as we're still stuck on that bullshit, we're being distracted away from faster progress into understanding causal mechanisms.
The faster and more accurately we can gain scientific understanding of those causal mechanisms,
the faster we can improve those systems in order to improve the output of those systems.
Improving the functionality and output of human cognitive, social, and societal systems,
will speed up our rate of progress.
That means we can more quickly put an end to mass-shootings, school shootings, domestic abuse, Major Personality Disorders, Mafia governments, the wanton destruction of our ecosystem, mental illness, cancers, birth defects, etc..
Religious moral authoritarians are only imaging that any such Being ... is the author of their thoughts, values, and subsequent behaviors.
Unfortunately,
human thinking is heavily flawed.
But that's exactly why everyone should be striving towards greater rationality and human virtues;
the very things which moral-authoritarians demonize.
To make matters worse,
moral-authoritarian religions tend to gravitate towards our WORST traits.
They do so in exactly the same ways
and for exactly the same reasons
American's current MAGA fascist political cult
plays upon humanity's worst traits.
It's because those systems were created by men with Major Personality Disorders.
From there, they accumulate power by recruiting opportunists whose moral compass will always point towards selfish interests.
From there, they gain massive cult followings
by exploiting the average person's lack of critical thinking skills.
They also exploit the average person's primitive and baser fears;
by metabolizing those fears into hate.
In turn, this create an air of justification for gross amounts of violence towards (incorrectly) perceived enemies.
.jfif)
Such religions are able to weaponize their sheep by exploiting tribal in-group/outgroup genetic predispositions.
-The very same genetics which moral-authoritarian religions claim their Sky Wizard "intelligently designed".
Meanwhile,
the only moral-authoritarian religionists who don't end up shopping around for a religion, sect, and congregation which suits their own subjective moral intuitions ...
are people who were so successfully and deeply TOLD what to think by their religious parents that their mind was shaped to permanently fit the particular moral framework their parents subjectively decided for them.
Let's also reflect on the ironic moral contradiction of religions which intentionally subvert, hijack, and negate their own children's right to self-determination ... by trying to permanently DICTATE truth and values for those children before those young minds have a chance to sort things out for themselves.
Let's notice the conflict of a "God's" lore ...
where that "God's" excuse for allowing so much tragedy in this world ... is because his own moral principals require non-interference.
Because Christian, Muslims, Judaic believers, and all other literal personal-God proclaimers ...
are telling us about a "God" who REQUIRES his chosen representatives-on-Earth to interfere AS extensions of Himself;
thereby demanding his own people violate his own morals in his name.
Moral-authoritarians commit to that gross moral contradiction in many ways.
Examples include:
* brainwashing children,
* brainwashing sufficiently-vulnerable adults,
and
* weaponizing government police and military agencies to use the threat of violence to force compliance with what God-fans say God wants.
Let's also notice how the word "atheist" isn't really even a meaningful word.
It's not a meaningful word, in-and-of-itself, because it just means "is not a theist".
And the term "theist" is not a meaningful word, because it just means "believes in a god".
And the term "god" is not meaningful in-and-of-itself, because it means whatever the invoker wants it to mean.
Once a God-word-invoker lays out a basic outline for what the term "God" means to them, ...
only then does the term "atheist" really start to mean anything.
Because now the God-word-invoker is providing their own subjective context to define it with.
However, let's notice how it still isn't very meaningful to call someone an "atheist".
Even in the context of a fundamentalist's quasi-specific framing for what "God" means to them, ...
the term "atheist" is like being a non-Leprechaun-ist.
As a non-Leprechaun-ist,
I would be ... not necessarily surprised
if a self-identified believer in "The King Of The Leprechauns" blames "people like me" for every society's economic instability.
No such instability would exist
if everyone submitted to the economic authority of the one true King.
True Leprechaun-ists defer to "the objective value, and the eternally stable value of GOLD".
Therefore, if everyone in a society were a true believer,
they would have a stable foundation for how they set economic values.
The wisdom of this is further evident, once we realize "The Eternal King Of The Leprechauns" created gold for this purpose;
just as he created golden phallic fruits to fit perfectly in both the human hand and mouth;
to allow for perfect ease-of-entry.
Clearly,
that which is truly golden
was intended for humans.
You can't have intent without an intender.
Therefore,
there obviously is
cosmic and sugary Daddy.
He showers us with blessings.
And those showers are golden.
Without "Him",
we'd have to SUBJECTIVELY and COLLECTIVELY decide on what to base our economies on.
We'd also have to subjectively decide what values to assign to things within that system.
As forever-helpless children,
we aren't qualified to make decisions for ourselves; nor to build and maintain essential social and societal systems.
We need the King of the Leprechauns to exist.
Therefor, he must.
We also need for him to care.
Therefore, he must.
And since he both exists and cares (because he must), ... that means he IS involved deeply in human affairs.
He must be.
Otherwise, how can anyone explain miracles?
In fact, LIFE and NATURE are very obvious miracles.
So then, anyone denying THAT are thus denying "Him".
Anyone denying HIM must not rightly appreciate all that he's done for them.
And thus, they must be assholes.
And thus, we should not trust their character.
Nor should we consider their reasoning;
because that's clearly broken too.
Or so they say.
But I reason quite differently.
At this moment,
I am reminded of a quote/meme which circulates on the internet.
I love this quote.
But as with most memes I find on the internet,
it could be improved by changing a few words.
That quote is this:
What changes would I make to this quote?
Where it says "empathy", I'd rather say "compassion and personal accountability".
Compassion is superior to empathy, because (as Professor Paul Bloom points out), .. "empathy is bias".
True compassion is, by nature,
available equitably;
for everyone.
And that matters, here, because:
Compassion for others
is a valid justification for secular values.
Personal accountability is too.
In fact, most people in our world (clearly) underestimate the importance of personal accountability.
A lack of personal accountability is a major driver of abuse, in all social and societal dramas.
If you've ever been the victim of someone who strongly wanted to hold YOU accountable for something they only IMAGINED you thinking, say, planning, or doing ...
BUT who wasn't the least bit interested in holding THEMSELVES accountable to you (nor holding themselves accountable even to their own self),
...
then you know (from that experience) exactly what I'm talking about.
And yet, you might ask how this point is part of my ANSWER to the "moral challenge" cited at the beginning of this blog.
Personal accountability,
as an ETHIC,
is directly relevant here
because:
1. We need this,
in order to maximize the health and function of all social and societal systems.
2. Theological systems work against this ethic;
which then self-refutes their claim to greater (or "sole") justification for their moral foundations and structures.
How so?
The ethic of personal accountability
is directly undermined by religions which teach people to REFUSE to take full personal responsibility for the moral judgments they pronounce onto others;
like when a religious person says "I'm not judging you; God is".
When such people refuse to accept full personal responsibility for proclaiming moral judgments,
they're also refusing to accept personal responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES;
more specifically, the HARM those alleged "messengers" cause in the lives of the people they are judging.
So then if you point out, for example, all the extreme mental anguish, anxiety, and self-loathing
CAUSED by those preachments, ...
And if you also point out the RESULTING oppressive legislation, mental illness, and UN-ALIVE-ING that happens in judged-people's lives, ...
the alleged "messenger" will just shrug it off as "God's will" and then say "if you don't like what I'm doing, take it up with God".
The same applies to the extreme and prolonged anxiety caused in vulnerable people's lives (including children) when they are told they might suffer being violently and permanently thrown away like TRASH, on "judgement day" if GOD finds them to be unworthy to save from God's own wrath.
The same applies to the extreme and prolonged anxiety caused in vulnerable people's lives (including children) when they are told they might be "left behind" in a "rapture" that is going to happen "any day now".
Those religions CHOOSE to ignore the consequences.
Such extreme and prolonged anxiety,
along with extreme and prolonged self-doubts
are SIGNFICANT drivers for severe mental anguish (a significant form of suffering) ... which ultimately results in significant mental illness.
That includes:
extreme and prolonged WORRYING about
about their own WORTHINESS to EXIST,
and about their family members' worthiness to exist,
and their WORTHINESS to be spared extreme violence at the hands of a Cosmic Super Parent.
Those are forms of severe child-abuse, domestic abuse, and social bullying; which the laws of our societies PERMIT on the basis of "religious liberty".
And yet, why are such extreme forms of abuse permitted?
Partly because it would be political suicide to ENFORCE existing laws against such abuse.
And yet, that's only the case because of how such religions have a mob-rule choke-hold on every political system. In fact, that's exactly WHY those religions make sure to infiltrate every government. That's how they hold entire nations HOSTAGE to their special privileges. Meanwhile, those religions have, thus far, totaled exactly "zero fucks given" for the CONSEQUENCES that EVERYONE must endure on a daily basis. Now, do I really mean "everyone"? Yep. It affects everyone. ALL forms of gross psychosocial dysfunction generate BEHAVIORS which eventually ripple-effect in literally everyone else's life. This is what makes every religious fundamentalist and "moderates" relationship with GOD" ... literally everybody's business. It's also what makes every progressive-religious person's faiths everyone else's business too. Progressive versions of moral-authoritarian religions ... do P.R. work for the labels they function under. That, in turn, helps insulate fundamentalists away from social and societal accountability. Why? Because a society which has an overall positive regard for a religious domain (a domain which they know by name, and by associate imagery, and by familiar and general religious concepts) will behave like guard dogs on behalf of anyone functioning in the name of that domain. Thus, that society will help to protect harmful religious groups and individuals from accountability. For all such religions, they do whatever they must in order to create their own opportunities and to avoid their own accountability. For them, attacking, demonizing, and delegitimizing "atheists", ... is a smoke screen. That's not the only reason religious fundamentalists treat targeted demographics so horribly. But it is one of their more important reasons. It's a fog which religious zealots, habitually committing crimes against humanity, are trying to hide within. They're trying to be safely distant from exposure and accountability. If the fundamentalist can sufficiently "poison the well" against atheists in any public venue, then random onlookers (including people who are members of the same religious domain as the attacker) will be less inclined to seriously consider anything the alleged "atheist" says. When they say something like "atheists can't justify decrying anything as "bad", because "bad" is always just a personal opinion unless my GOD is the person issuing those moral judgements", ... What they are really saying is "only someone who fears MY deity is qualified to assess the rational and ethical merits of MY deity.". That's the gimmick they are using to protect a "God" (who is actually their own ego) from all accountability. Consider: Nobody who fears THEIR deity is ever going to find any fault with THEIR deity. Why not? 1. He will FUCK THEIR SHIT UP if they do find any fault with him. 2. Most people who fear that deity (more accurately, people who fear a mentally projected entity they mistakenly think is the same entity as the other person's "God") ... are not just under threat. They are also under bribe. They don't want to void their (imaginary) I.O.U. for eternal "treasures in heaven". -Especially when some of those treasures include being allowed (some day) to reunite with ghost-form, loved-one hostages of that same "God". Hostages that nobody is allowed to see nor communicate with. Hostages kept in a place nobody is permitted to see; nor even locate on any cosmic map. They're also (allegedly) being held in CONDITIONS we are given no specifics about; except that they've been re-programmed. They've been re-programmed to never again even be CAPABLE of having a thought, feeling, or action ... except for thoughts, feelings, and actions "God" permits and requires. In other words, all the ghost-souls in heaven have been transformed into very same sort of Praise-Robots "God" never wanted in the first place. And why? So that the Cosmic Snowflake can spend the rest of HIS timeless-eternity in the ultimate safe-space bubble; surrounded only with tiny mirrors of himself. Living humans are not even allowed to see EVIDENCE that those hostages have not been harmed; except for the assurance (per religions) that EVERYTHING which made them distinct from "God" ... has been "lovingly" destroyed; to make room for more of "God". With those "souls" (whatever traces remain of the people we used to know) held hostage, that means their loved ones here on Earth are ALSO being held hostage with fear. They are held hostage by "fear of God"; which includes the fear of never seeing whatever-remains of their loved ones ... ever again. Billions of living humans ... having the BEST parts of their own humanity (their capacity for love) weaponized against them; weaponized by fellow humans who are claiming (contrary to evidence) to speak for The Creator Of The Universe. 3. Other cultists who think of themselves as having the same "God" are often suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome; rendering them incapable of finding fault with the mentally perceived owner they call "God". Now, it's important to understand that when a religious fundamentalist labels all critics as "atheists", that too is a mind-hacking gimmick. Because what they SAY they mean is "anyone morally bankrupt enough to not-believe in ANY God". But that's a gimmick which attempts to call upon any other kinds of God-invokers in the room; to join forces in a spontaneous and temporary alliance, to wage cultural warfare against a scoffer. The basic is idea is "hey pagan! Yea, you! This evil clown over here doesn't believe in YOUR God either! Are you going to take that insult?!" The fundamentalist is, in that moment, hoping the "false-God-believer" doesn't realize that the fundamentalist is both a FAR harsher critic and their true enemy. When the fundamentalist says "only someone who believes in God is qualified to assess the merits of God", .. what they really mean is "my God". They are disqualifying "anyone morally bankrupt enough to not-believe in MY GOD". This becomes evident whenever a deist, or a pantheist, or a wiccan, or a polytheist, etc... wage the very same criticisms as any "atheist" has waged. They too will be told "if you don't profess a belief in MY GOD who is the ONLY GOD who even exists ... then you aren't really a true God-believer. They are HOPING you don't realize that MANY of the people who are tired of dealing with the Societal Sabotage of Moral-Authoritarian religions ... are deists, pantheists, wiccans, Native American Indigenous spiritualists, metaphorical-Christians, progressive-Christians, agnostic theists, etc.. So EVEN IF religious moral-authoritarians had a valid point about "atheists" (they don't; but even if they did), ... the same criticisms which religious moral-authoritarians are trying to HIDE from ... would STAND on the merits of all rival God-isms. So then those criticism would still be there ... waiting to be addressed. Those problems don't magically disappear even if all the atheists magically disappear (or get "summarily dismissed" from being listened to). Meanwhile, neither Christians nor Muslims have a "GOD" dispensing moral truths to them. Religions have random MEN dispensing moral CLAIMS to them. Those claims are being advertised as "objective moral truths" coming from a Magical Sky Parent. They're ignoring how a Magical Sky Parent's moral-intuitions would still be HIS subjective intuitions. And thus, anyone who adopts those intuitions on the basis of "he said so", would still have a subjective foundation for their morality. In fact, even if we say that a "Perfect" Being's moral intuitions should count as "objective", ... his fan-base would still end up with a subjective morality. There's no way around that. I'll explain why I say that, in just a moment. The argument that "we need a perfect parent to TELL us what is good and bad" ... is an appeal to "if not X, then we're fucked". We ARE, in fact, fucked. We're fucked without a Super-Parent (or super-aliens) to show up in the sky RIGHT-the-fuck-now to instantly cure all forms of non-voluntary suffering and death. And yet, no such Super-Parent (or super-aliens) are about to DO that. Arguing "we need X, or else we're screwed" ... is not a rational basis for saying "it must be that we already have X". Even if the DEISTS are correct about "God", or if the ancient Stoics were correct about "God", ... we are still "on our own"; left to figure shit out as best we can. Hell, even if some version of Christianity or Islam are basically correct about the source of their religion, ... they would still be on their own; left to figure shit out as best they subjectively can. They'd still have to subjectively self-indulge a long series of subjective intuitions, just to end up IN whichever version of whichever religion they're in. They'd have to subjectively decide "there must be a "God". They'd have to subjectively decide how to define "God". They'd have to subjectively decide that there is only ONE of those. They'd have to subjectively decide that it's a "He". They'd have to subjectively decide that he is playing a high stakes game of Hide and Seek with all humans. They'd have to subjectively decide which trails of ideological and experiential breadcrumbs lead to "him". They'd have to subjectively decide which religious texts, and then which versions OF those texts they "ought" to be looking for "God" inside of. They'd have to subjectively decide which sects are qualified to interpret and teach what those texts "really mean". They'd have to subjectively decide how any of that "ought" to be applied to people's lives today. The end result? Any two Christians, if they take this journey separately, ... will end up with a wide range of significant disagreements about what "God" says. Any two Muslims will end up in moral disagreement too. But it's worse than that. Because all of them will believe that an INFALLIBLE God "revealed to them" what he thinks. And thus, they will feel that it's "morally wrong" to question what he has revealed. And thus, they will be CEMENTED into utter stubborn-ness about their moral conclusions. So then if there are some more factual, logical, and ethical ways of reasoning which would RESULT in healthier psychology, or healthier relationships, or healthier societies ... the person who claims an "objective morality" won't be OPEN to seriously considering other ways of thinking. They won't be able to RECOGNIZE their own morality-themed paradigm's truly SUBJECTIVE nature. Thus, they will neither take proper responsibility nor ownership of their own subjective processes and conclusions. Thus, they won't feel like they have the right to question any of it. As a result, they'll be STUCK; trapped into whatever moral corner they've painted themselves into; disconnected from their own capacity to search, discover, and grow beyond it. And everyone around them will suffer because of it.
disabling us,
hinder development of autonomous ethical strengths,
Sabotage each next generations mental health,
in trade for social benefits which only rarely outweigh the consequences,
.png)
setting children up for abusive marriages,
Granted, those same religions will say their "God" ALSO hates it when wives, children, and husbands are abused.
And so they imagine they've properly accounted for this concern.
However,
they have NOT properly accounted for this concern, because:
1. Social inequality IS a form of abuse; which ripple effects into other forms of abuse.
2. Those religions push ways of thinking
into vulnerable people's minds
which are objectively, factually antithetical to social and psychological health.
So then those religions are really saying "God" hates all abuse EXCEPT FOR the abuses he orchestrates and mandates.
And then they say ... we should not call those abuses "abuse".
They say it's all good, ... in some way they can't account for.
In other words, they are demanding to be EXEMPT from the ethical and rational standards the rest of society is bound to.
To quote Dr Robert Sapolsky,
“the same exact traits which in a secular context are life-destroying” and “separate you from the community” are, “at the core of what is protected, what is sanctioned, what is rewarded, what is valued in religious settings.”
And they're only justification for that?
"That's how God wants it".
[The list of problems caused by such religions is much longer than this. But I trust I've made my point.]
In any case,
all creatures,
same as all plant and objects,
behave according to their individual nature;
a nature which is determined by the complex and interactive physical systems which drive them.
At this point in our biological and cultural evolution,
it's in our individual and collective best interests
to stop pretending that the impossible-magic of libertarian Free Will is what's driving human thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
For as long as we're still stuck on that bullshit, we're being distracted away from faster progress into understanding causal mechanisms.
The faster and more accurately we can gain scientific understanding of those causal mechanisms,
the faster we can improve those systems in order to improve the output of those systems.
Improving the functionality and output of human cognitive, social, and societal systems,
will speed up our rate of progress.
That means we can more quickly put an end to mass-shootings, school shootings, domestic abuse, Major Personality Disorders, Mafia governments, the wanton destruction of our ecosystem, mental illness, cancers, birth defects, etc..
Religious moral authoritarians are only imaging that any such Being ... is the author of their thoughts, values, and subsequent behaviors.
Unfortunately,
human thinking is heavily flawed.
But that's exactly why everyone should be striving towards greater rationality and human virtues;
the very things which moral-authoritarians demonize.
To make matters worse,
moral-authoritarian religions tend to gravitate towards our WORST traits.
They do so in exactly the same ways
and for exactly the same reasons
American's current MAGA fascist political cult
plays upon humanity's worst traits.
It's because those systems were created by men with Major Personality Disorders.
From there, they accumulate power by recruiting opportunists whose moral compass will always point towards selfish interests.
From there, they gain massive cult followings
by exploiting the average person's lack of critical thinking skills.
They also exploit the average person's primitive and baser fears;
by metabolizing those fears into hate.
In turn, this create an air of justification for gross amounts of violence towards (incorrectly) perceived enemies.
Such religions are able to weaponize their sheep by exploiting tribal in-group/outgroup genetic predispositions.
-The very same genetics which moral-authoritarian religions claim their Sky Wizard "intelligently designed".
the only moral-authoritarian religionists who don't end up shopping around for a religion, sect, and congregation which suits their own subjective moral intuitions ...
are people who were so successfully and deeply TOLD what to think by their religious parents that their mind was shaped to permanently fit the particular moral framework their parents subjectively decided for them.
Let's also reflect on the ironic moral contradiction of religions which intentionally subvert, hijack, and negate their own children's right to self-determination ... by trying to permanently DICTATE truth and values for those children before those young minds have a chance to sort things out for themselves.
Let's notice the conflict of a "God's" lore ...
where that "God's" excuse for allowing so much tragedy in this world ... is because his own moral principals require non-interference.
Because Christian, Muslims, Judaic believers, and all other literal personal-God proclaimers ...
are telling us about a "God" who REQUIRES his chosen representatives-on-Earth to interfere AS extensions of Himself;
thereby demanding his own people violate his own morals in his name.
Moral-authoritarians commit to that gross moral contradiction in many ways.
Examples include:
* brainwashing children,
* brainwashing sufficiently-vulnerable adults,
and
* weaponizing government police and military agencies to use the threat of violence to force compliance with what God-fans say God wants.
Let's also notice how the word "atheist" isn't really even a meaningful word.
It's not a meaningful word, in-and-of-itself, because it just means "is not a theist".
And the term "theist" is not a meaningful word, because it just means "believes in a god".
And the term "god" is not meaningful in-and-of-itself, because it means whatever the invoker wants it to mean.
Once a God-word-invoker lays out a basic outline for what the term "God" means to them, ...
only then does the term "atheist" really start to mean anything.
Because now the God-word-invoker is providing their own subjective context to define it with.
However, let's notice how it still isn't very meaningful to call someone an "atheist".
Even in the context of a fundamentalist's quasi-specific framing for what "God" means to them, ...
the term "atheist" is like being a non-Leprechaun-ist.
As a non-Leprechaun-ist,
I would be ... not necessarily surprised
if a self-identified believer in "The King Of The Leprechauns" blames "people like me" for every society's economic instability.
No such instability would exist
if everyone submitted to the economic authority of the one true King.
True Leprechaun-ists defer to "the objective value, and the eternally stable value of GOLD".
Therefore, if everyone in a society were a true believer,
they would have a stable foundation for how they set economic values.
The wisdom of this is further evident, once we realize "The Eternal King Of The Leprechauns" created gold for this purpose;
just as he created golden phallic fruits to fit perfectly in both the human hand and mouth;
to allow for perfect ease-of-entry.
Clearly,
that which is truly golden
was intended for humans.
You can't have intent without an intender.
Therefore,
there obviously is
cosmic and sugary Daddy.
He showers us with blessings.
And those showers are golden.
Without "Him",
we'd have to SUBJECTIVELY and COLLECTIVELY decide on what to base our economies on.
We'd also have to subjectively decide what values to assign to things within that system.
As forever-helpless children,
we aren't qualified to make decisions for ourselves; nor to build and maintain essential social and societal systems.
We need the King of the Leprechauns to exist.
Therefor, he must.
We also need for him to care.
Therefore, he must.
And since he both exists and cares (because he must), ... that means he IS involved deeply in human affairs.
He must be.
Otherwise, how can anyone explain miracles?
In fact, LIFE and NATURE are very obvious miracles.
So then, anyone denying THAT are thus denying "Him".
Anyone denying HIM must not rightly appreciate all that he's done for them.
And thus, they must be assholes.
And thus, we should not trust their character.
Nor should we consider their reasoning;
because that's clearly broken too.
Or so they say.
But I reason quite differently.
At this moment,
I am reminded of a quote/meme which circulates on the internet.
I love this quote.
But as with most memes I find on the internet,
it could be improved by changing a few words.
That quote is this:
What changes would I make to this quote?
Where it says "empathy", I'd rather say "compassion and personal accountability".
Compassion is superior to empathy, because (as Professor Paul Bloom points out), .. "empathy is bias".
True compassion is, by nature,
available equitably;
for everyone.
And that matters, here, because:
Compassion for others
is a valid justification for secular values.
Personal accountability is too.
In fact, most people in our world (clearly) underestimate the importance of personal accountability.
A lack of personal accountability is a major driver of abuse, in all social and societal dramas.
If you've ever been the victim of someone who strongly wanted to hold YOU accountable for something they only IMAGINED you thinking, say, planning, or doing ...
BUT who wasn't the least bit interested in holding THEMSELVES accountable to you (nor holding themselves accountable even to their own self),
...
then you know (from that experience) exactly what I'm talking about.
And yet, you might ask how this point is part of my ANSWER to the "moral challenge" cited at the beginning of this blog.
Personal accountability,
as an ETHIC,
is directly relevant here
because:
1. We need this,
in order to maximize the health and function of all social and societal systems.
2. Theological systems work against this ethic;
which then self-refutes their claim to greater (or "sole") justification for their moral foundations and structures.
How so?
The ethic of personal accountability
is directly undermined by religions which teach people to REFUSE to take full personal responsibility for the moral judgments they pronounce onto others;
like when a religious person says "I'm not judging you; God is".
When such people refuse to accept full personal responsibility for proclaiming moral judgments,
they're also refusing to accept personal responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES;
more specifically, the HARM those alleged "messengers" cause in the lives of the people they are judging.
So then if you point out, for example, all the extreme mental anguish, anxiety, and self-loathing
CAUSED by those preachments, ...
And if you also point out the RESULTING oppressive legislation, mental illness, and UN-ALIVE-ING that happens in judged-people's lives, ...
the alleged "messenger" will just shrug it off as "God's will" and then say "if you don't like what I'm doing, take it up with God".
The same applies to the extreme and prolonged anxiety caused in vulnerable people's lives (including children) when they are told they might suffer being violently and permanently thrown away like TRASH, on "judgement day" if GOD finds them to be unworthy to save from God's own wrath.
The same applies to the extreme and prolonged anxiety caused in vulnerable people's lives (including children) when they are told they might be "left behind" in a "rapture" that is going to happen "any day now".
Those religions CHOOSE to ignore the consequences.
Such extreme and prolonged anxiety,
along with extreme and prolonged self-doubts
are SIGNFICANT drivers for severe mental anguish (a significant form of suffering) ... which ultimately results in significant mental illness.
That includes:
extreme and prolonged WORRYING about
about their own WORTHINESS to EXIST,
and about their family members' worthiness to exist,
and their WORTHINESS to be spared extreme violence at the hands of a Cosmic Super Parent.
Those are forms of severe child-abuse, domestic abuse, and social bullying; which the laws of our societies PERMIT on the basis of "religious liberty".
And yet, why are such extreme forms of abuse permitted?
Partly because it would be political suicide to ENFORCE existing laws against such abuse.
And yet, that's only the case because of how such religions have a mob-rule choke-hold on every political system. In fact, that's exactly WHY those religions make sure to infiltrate every government. That's how they hold entire nations HOSTAGE to their special privileges. Meanwhile, those religions have, thus far, totaled exactly "zero fucks given" for the CONSEQUENCES that EVERYONE must endure on a daily basis. Now, do I really mean "everyone"? Yep. It affects everyone. ALL forms of gross psychosocial dysfunction generate BEHAVIORS which eventually ripple-effect in literally everyone else's life. This is what makes every religious fundamentalist and "moderates" relationship with GOD" ... literally everybody's business. It's also what makes every progressive-religious person's faiths everyone else's business too. Progressive versions of moral-authoritarian religions ... do P.R. work for the labels they function under. That, in turn, helps insulate fundamentalists away from social and societal accountability. Why? Because a society which has an overall positive regard for a religious domain (a domain which they know by name, and by associate imagery, and by familiar and general religious concepts) will behave like guard dogs on behalf of anyone functioning in the name of that domain. Thus, that society will help to protect harmful religious groups and individuals from accountability. For all such religions, they do whatever they must in order to create their own opportunities and to avoid their own accountability. For them, attacking, demonizing, and delegitimizing "atheists", ... is a smoke screen. That's not the only reason religious fundamentalists treat targeted demographics so horribly. But it is one of their more important reasons. It's a fog which religious zealots, habitually committing crimes against humanity, are trying to hide within. They're trying to be safely distant from exposure and accountability. If the fundamentalist can sufficiently "poison the well" against atheists in any public venue, then random onlookers (including people who are members of the same religious domain as the attacker) will be less inclined to seriously consider anything the alleged "atheist" says. When they say something like "atheists can't justify decrying anything as "bad", because "bad" is always just a personal opinion unless my GOD is the person issuing those moral judgements", ... What they are really saying is "only someone who fears MY deity is qualified to assess the rational and ethical merits of MY deity.". That's the gimmick they are using to protect a "God" (who is actually their own ego) from all accountability. Consider: Nobody who fears THEIR deity is ever going to find any fault with THEIR deity. Why not? 1. He will FUCK THEIR SHIT UP if they do find any fault with him. 2. Most people who fear that deity (more accurately, people who fear a mentally projected entity they mistakenly think is the same entity as the other person's "God") ... are not just under threat. They are also under bribe. They don't want to void their (imaginary) I.O.U. for eternal "treasures in heaven". -Especially when some of those treasures include being allowed (some day) to reunite with ghost-form, loved-one hostages of that same "God". Hostages that nobody is allowed to see nor communicate with. Hostages kept in a place nobody is permitted to see; nor even locate on any cosmic map. They're also (allegedly) being held in CONDITIONS we are given no specifics about; except that they've been re-programmed. They've been re-programmed to never again even be CAPABLE of having a thought, feeling, or action ... except for thoughts, feelings, and actions "God" permits and requires. In other words, all the ghost-souls in heaven have been transformed into very same sort of Praise-Robots "God" never wanted in the first place. And why? So that the Cosmic Snowflake can spend the rest of HIS timeless-eternity in the ultimate safe-space bubble; surrounded only with tiny mirrors of himself. Living humans are not even allowed to see EVIDENCE that those hostages have not been harmed; except for the assurance (per religions) that EVERYTHING which made them distinct from "God" ... has been "lovingly" destroyed; to make room for more of "God". With those "souls" (whatever traces remain of the people we used to know) held hostage, that means their loved ones here on Earth are ALSO being held hostage with fear. They are held hostage by "fear of God"; which includes the fear of never seeing whatever-remains of their loved ones ... ever again. Billions of living humans ... having the BEST parts of their own humanity (their capacity for love) weaponized against them; weaponized by fellow humans who are claiming (contrary to evidence) to speak for The Creator Of The Universe. 3. Other cultists who think of themselves as having the same "God" are often suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome; rendering them incapable of finding fault with the mentally perceived owner they call "God". Now, it's important to understand that when a religious fundamentalist labels all critics as "atheists", that too is a mind-hacking gimmick. Because what they SAY they mean is "anyone morally bankrupt enough to not-believe in ANY God". But that's a gimmick which attempts to call upon any other kinds of God-invokers in the room; to join forces in a spontaneous and temporary alliance, to wage cultural warfare against a scoffer. The basic is idea is "hey pagan! Yea, you! This evil clown over here doesn't believe in YOUR God either! Are you going to take that insult?!" The fundamentalist is, in that moment, hoping the "false-God-believer" doesn't realize that the fundamentalist is both a FAR harsher critic and their true enemy. When the fundamentalist says "only someone who believes in God is qualified to assess the merits of God", .. what they really mean is "my God". They are disqualifying "anyone morally bankrupt enough to not-believe in MY GOD". This becomes evident whenever a deist, or a pantheist, or a wiccan, or a polytheist, etc... wage the very same criticisms as any "atheist" has waged. They too will be told "if you don't profess a belief in MY GOD who is the ONLY GOD who even exists ... then you aren't really a true God-believer. They are HOPING you don't realize that MANY of the people who are tired of dealing with the Societal Sabotage of Moral-Authoritarian religions ... are deists, pantheists, wiccans, Native American Indigenous spiritualists, metaphorical-Christians, progressive-Christians, agnostic theists, etc.. So EVEN IF religious moral-authoritarians had a valid point about "atheists" (they don't; but even if they did), ... the same criticisms which religious moral-authoritarians are trying to HIDE from ... would STAND on the merits of all rival God-isms. So then those criticism would still be there ... waiting to be addressed. Those problems don't magically disappear even if all the atheists magically disappear (or get "summarily dismissed" from being listened to). Meanwhile, neither Christians nor Muslims have a "GOD" dispensing moral truths to them. Religions have random MEN dispensing moral CLAIMS to them. Those claims are being advertised as "objective moral truths" coming from a Magical Sky Parent. They're ignoring how a Magical Sky Parent's moral-intuitions would still be HIS subjective intuitions. And thus, anyone who adopts those intuitions on the basis of "he said so", would still have a subjective foundation for their morality. In fact, even if we say that a "Perfect" Being's moral intuitions should count as "objective", ... his fan-base would still end up with a subjective morality. There's no way around that. I'll explain why I say that, in just a moment. The argument that "we need a perfect parent to TELL us what is good and bad" ... is an appeal to "if not X, then we're fucked". We ARE, in fact, fucked. We're fucked without a Super-Parent (or super-aliens) to show up in the sky RIGHT-the-fuck-now to instantly cure all forms of non-voluntary suffering and death. And yet, no such Super-Parent (or super-aliens) are about to DO that. Arguing "we need X, or else we're screwed" ... is not a rational basis for saying "it must be that we already have X". Even if the DEISTS are correct about "God", or if the ancient Stoics were correct about "God", ... we are still "on our own"; left to figure shit out as best we can. Hell, even if some version of Christianity or Islam are basically correct about the source of their religion, ... they would still be on their own; left to figure shit out as best they subjectively can. They'd still have to subjectively self-indulge a long series of subjective intuitions, just to end up IN whichever version of whichever religion they're in. They'd have to subjectively decide "there must be a "God". They'd have to subjectively decide how to define "God". They'd have to subjectively decide that there is only ONE of those. They'd have to subjectively decide that it's a "He". They'd have to subjectively decide that he is playing a high stakes game of Hide and Seek with all humans. They'd have to subjectively decide which trails of ideological and experiential breadcrumbs lead to "him". They'd have to subjectively decide which religious texts, and then which versions OF those texts they "ought" to be looking for "God" inside of. They'd have to subjectively decide which sects are qualified to interpret and teach what those texts "really mean". They'd have to subjectively decide how any of that "ought" to be applied to people's lives today. The end result? Any two Christians, if they take this journey separately, ... will end up with a wide range of significant disagreements about what "God" says. Any two Muslims will end up in moral disagreement too. But it's worse than that. Because all of them will believe that an INFALLIBLE God "revealed to them" what he thinks. And thus, they will feel that it's "morally wrong" to question what he has revealed. And thus, they will be CEMENTED into utter stubborn-ness about their moral conclusions. So then if there are some more factual, logical, and ethical ways of reasoning which would RESULT in healthier psychology, or healthier relationships, or healthier societies ... the person who claims an "objective morality" won't be OPEN to seriously considering other ways of thinking. They won't be able to RECOGNIZE their own morality-themed paradigm's truly SUBJECTIVE nature. Thus, they will neither take proper responsibility nor ownership of their own subjective processes and conclusions. Thus, they won't feel like they have the right to question any of it. As a result, they'll be STUCK; trapped into whatever moral corner they've painted themselves into; disconnected from their own capacity to search, discover, and grow beyond it. And everyone around them will suffer because of it.
Meanwhile, ..
It is rational
for any sentient and intelligent being
to want to live in a safe world;
for their own sake, for their children's' sake,
and for the sake of anyone/everyone else they care about.
It is also rational
to want a world which is rich in opportunities for personal internal growth and enrichment.
Also, because human psychology is entirely carrot-and-stick-driven,
it makes sense (within the context) for humans to want to minimize their world's dangers, while maximizing their world's opportunities for euphoric experience;
-just as it makes sense for a Beaver to want to live near rivers and trees.
Thus,
it is objectively rational
for someone to ask themselves "What can we do ... in order to create and sustain social systems and ecosystems in which we could thrive?".
Notice how beavers don't need to appeal to a Giant Beaver In The Sky, to justify their desire to chew on trees or build dams.
And yet, if Beavers became intelligent enough to QUESTION the source of those desires,
and also intelligent enough to understand how biological evolution generated their basic behavioral traits, we'd be impressed. And if Beavers matured into societies,
and then realized how cultural evolution creates a new set of drivers for perceptions and values,
we'd be even more impressed.
But we might be LESS impressed if they started reasoning like Christian and Islamic fundamentalists;
to think no beaver can justify their interests ... unless they assume randomly-any-version of a Cosmic Beaver and then IMAGINE "Him" giving them design, permission, or commands ...
to do
a.) whatever they already needed and wanted to do
or,
b.) whatever a self-appointed "Beaver in Charge" tells them to do, or tells them NOT to do,
on the basis of "Cosmic Beaver put me in charge of you".
---
To put this into even more sharply clarified view,
what Christians are really appealing to is:
a latent, single-digit-childhood, psychosocial paradigm.
There is leftover neurological wiring from when they were very very young.
That "inner child" still doesn't know how to make sense of their self, the world around them, and their place within it,
...
except through the lens of a 5 year old;
a child who needs a larger-than-life super-parent to tell them:
* WHO they are,
* what they "ought to do",
* what they "better not do; or else",
...
and to provide
* personal identity.
And then to validate their WORTH
based on
* obedience to that parent
and
* flattery to/about that parent, to show how thankful and awe-struck that child is towards the parent.
That's what happens when an adult-aged human has not yet matured into a fully realized ability to provide all of those things for themselves.
They remain STUCK ... thinking they never could.
And to make matters worse,
by making that problem deeper (and potentially permanent), ...
Predatory religions seek-out such people, in order to exploit that vulnerability.
They exploit that vulnerability
by telling those people "We were designed by a Cosmic Super-Parent to always need to be parented. Just accept that. Find PEACE in knowing you were never meant to become too responsible for your own mind, nor your own life.
Let US tell you what "He" demands of you.
And let US personally benefit from that conflict of interests.
So that YOU will never need the courage it takes to own yourself."
for any sentient and intelligent being
to want to live in a safe world;
for their own sake, for their children's' sake,
and for the sake of anyone/everyone else they care about.
It is also rational
to want a world which is rich in opportunities for personal internal growth and enrichment.
Also, because human psychology is entirely carrot-and-stick-driven,
it makes sense (within the context) for humans to want to minimize their world's dangers, while maximizing their world's opportunities for euphoric experience;
-just as it makes sense for a Beaver to want to live near rivers and trees.
Thus,
it is objectively rational
for someone to ask themselves "What can we do ... in order to create and sustain social systems and ecosystems in which we could thrive?".
Notice how beavers don't need to appeal to a Giant Beaver In The Sky, to justify their desire to chew on trees or build dams.
And yet, if Beavers became intelligent enough to QUESTION the source of those desires,
and also intelligent enough to understand how biological evolution generated their basic behavioral traits, we'd be impressed. And if Beavers matured into societies,
and then realized how cultural evolution creates a new set of drivers for perceptions and values,
we'd be even more impressed.
But we might be LESS impressed if they started reasoning like Christian and Islamic fundamentalists;
to think no beaver can justify their interests ... unless they assume randomly-any-version of a Cosmic Beaver and then IMAGINE "Him" giving them design, permission, or commands ...
to do
a.) whatever they already needed and wanted to do
or,
b.) whatever a self-appointed "Beaver in Charge" tells them to do, or tells them NOT to do,
on the basis of "Cosmic Beaver put me in charge of you".
---
To put this into even more sharply clarified view,
what Christians are really appealing to is:
a latent, single-digit-childhood, psychosocial paradigm.
There is leftover neurological wiring from when they were very very young.
That "inner child" still doesn't know how to make sense of their self, the world around them, and their place within it,
...
except through the lens of a 5 year old;
a child who needs a larger-than-life super-parent to tell them:
* WHO they are,
* what they "ought to do",
* what they "better not do; or else",
...
and to provide
* personal identity.
And then to validate their WORTH
based on
* obedience to that parent
and
* flattery to/about that parent, to show how thankful and awe-struck that child is towards the parent.
That's what happens when an adult-aged human has not yet matured into a fully realized ability to provide all of those things for themselves.
They remain STUCK ... thinking they never could.
And to make matters worse,
by making that problem deeper (and potentially permanent), ...
Predatory religions seek-out such people, in order to exploit that vulnerability.
They exploit that vulnerability
by telling those people "We were designed by a Cosmic Super-Parent to always need to be parented. Just accept that. Find PEACE in knowing you were never meant to become too responsible for your own mind, nor your own life.
Let US tell you what "He" demands of you.
And let US personally benefit from that conflict of interests.
So that YOU will never need the courage it takes to own yourself."
Comments
Post a Comment